In my opinion, neither theft or robbery but a misplaced treasure. Article 439 defines treasure as “any hidden and unknown deposit of money, jewelry, or other precious objects, the lawful ownership of which does not appear.â€
For academic discussion, I will say the $60,000 was a treasure all right, although the condition surrounding its discovery suggests it was not, or at least the finder thought the owner didn’t like the treasure anymore. Had no claimant come forward, the axiom “finders, keepers†does not apply absolutely. At this point, the burden of proof is on the money-exchange trader – to show that he is the real owner of the lost and found money.
“
When the discovery is made on the property of another, or of the State or any of its subdivisions, and by chance, one-half thereof shall be allowed to the finder. If the finder is a trespasser, he shall not be entitled to any share of the treasure. If the things found be of interest to science of the arts, the State may acquire them at their just price, which shall be divided in conformity with the rule stated.â€
By the definition underlined above, if the scavenger is not the owner of the parcel of land (for this, i assume that the land is a government property, being a public waste disposal area) to where the treasure was discovered, though he is not considered a tresspasser, he (the scavenger) does have the right to claim half of the treasure. But since there appears a claimant of the said treasure,
the finders have no right to claim any portion of the treasure, that is if the claimant can established proof of ownership. Otherwise, the finders are allowed to share half of the treasure. But since only 1/3 of the money is left ouf of the treasure, losing 2/3 of it to the local scavengers, I think the argument becomes moot and academic.
Linkback:
https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=16538.0